Proton therapy dose distribution comparison between Monte Carlo and a treatment planning system for pediatric patients with ependymoma.

PURPOSE Compare dose distributions for pediatric patients with ependymoma calculated using a Monte Carlo (MC) system and a clinical treatment planning system (TPS). METHODS Plans from ten pediatric patients with ependymoma treated using double scatter proton therapy were exported from the TPS and calculated in our MC system. A field by field comparison of the distal edge (80% and 20%), distal fall off (80% to 20%), field width (50% to 50%), and penumbra (80% to 20%) were examined. In addition, the target dose for the full plan was compared. RESULTS For the 32 fields from the 10 patients, the average differences of distal edge at 80% and 20% on central axis between MC and TPS are -1.9 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.001) and -0.6 ± 2.3 mm (p = 0.13), respectively. Excluding the fields that ranged out in bone or an air cavity, the 80% difference was -0.9 ± 1.7 mm (p = 0.09). The negative value indicates that MC was on average shallower than TPS. The average difference of the 63 field widths of the 10 patients is -0.7 ± 1.0 mm (p < 0.001), negative indicating on average the MC had a smaller field width. On average, the difference in the penumbra was 2.3 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001). The average of the mean clinical target volume dose differences is -1.8% (p = 0.001), negative indicating a lower dose for MC. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the MC system and TPS gave similar results for field width, the 20% distal edge, and the target coverage. For the 80% distal edge and lateral penumbra, there was slight disagreement; however, the difference was less than 2 mm and occurred primarily in highly heterogeneous areas. These differences highlight that the TPS dose calculation cannot be automatically regarded as correct.

[1]  Alfred R. Smith,et al.  Benchmarking analytical calculations of proton doses in heterogeneous matter. , 2005, Medical physics.

[2]  Helen H Liu,et al.  Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning. , 2007, Medical physics.

[3]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Clinical implementation of full Monte Carlo dose calculation in proton beam therapy , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  G T Chen,et al.  Degradation of the Bragg peak due to inhomogeneities. , 1986, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  R. Mohan,et al.  Assessment of the accuracy of an MCNPX-based Monte Carlo simulation model for predicting three-dimensional absorbed dose distributions , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Proton Beams to Replace Photon Beams in Radical Dose Treatments , 2003, Acta oncologica.

[7]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  The impact of uncertainties in the CT conversion algorithm when predicting proton beam ranges in patients from dose and PET-activity distributions , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  H Helen Liu,et al.  Dm rather than Dw should be used in Monte Carlo treatment planning. For the proposition. , 2002, Medical physics.

[10]  C Nauraye,et al.  Monte Carlo modelling of the treatment line of the Proton Therapy Center in Orsay , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  H Paganetti,et al.  Accurate Monte Carlo simulations for nozzle design, commissioning and quality assurance for a proton radiation therapy facility. , 2004, Medical physics.

[12]  P. Keall.  Dm rather than Dw should be used in Monte Carlo treatment planning. Against the proposition. , 2002, Medical physics.

[13]  U Oelfke,et al.  Quantifying lateral tissue heterogeneities in hadron therapy. , 2007, Medical physics.

[14]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Density heterogeneities and the influence of multiple Coulomb and nuclear scatterings on the Bragg peak distal edge of proton therapy beams , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  M Goitein,et al.  A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Dose to water versus dose to medium in proton beam therapy , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.